Who starts? Who does what next? Who determines the agenda? Since there are many differing issues, and of relative importance, we need a way to figure out how we will separate the wheat from the chaff, and visualize a common design. In a multiparty negotiation, finding order and process can be harder than finding the proverbial needle in the haystack. In the simple world of a two party negotiation, each party generally takes turns in their exchanges, as they proceed along the way. A weak or patched agreement is like threading your way through rush hour, wearing a blindfold and hoping for the best – it seldom works out very well. The one caution that must be inserted here, is to be wary of making an agreement for an agreements sake.

The focus must always be on finding an effective agreement, a common vision that satisfies all their needs, in the best possible manner.

Conflicts will have to be overcome, as the group wrestles to achieve a uniform solution that is satisfactory, to not only the participants, but the constituents they represent as well. Negotiators may face a variety of tactics or even unethical gambits, as they evaluate and measure each other in pressing home their points. Personalities may interact either melodiously, or abrasively. Now, the negotiators will be more challenged as they strive to achieve their individual objectives, while facing the pressing issues of staying cohesive and maintaining a unified direction. We are no longer dealing with one-on-one discussions where there is usually some degree of ebb and flow. The People Puzzleĭuring multiparty negotiations, we have to deal with a variety of agendas. This is simply a melodramatic way of saying that multiparty negotiations are complex and challenging, given all the factors we have to consider and keep in mind at all times. We should be quite pleased to find the resulting mix eatable, while secretly being happy it didn’t explode in our face. Like a demented chef madly throwing their ingredients into the pot, let us also add a multiple myriad of facts and figures, projections, expert opinions, and extraneous analysis into this culinary brew. When we have more parties at the table, we will also face a multi prism of issues, viewpoints and perspectives. It is a complex drama where the actors may ad-lib their lines throughout the entire play, with mixed results. This could result in a power struggle that might tie up the various discussions, that interplay throughout the discussions and at different levels. Status can have meaningful implications as the authority levels of the representatives might be mismatched. Some negotiators may have a high level of executive status, while others are lower down in the corporate food chain with lesser status. We might have to brazen out the dilemma posed by the ‘ pecking order‘ conundrum. Some negotiators may be acting as primary representatives, while others may be agents or third party negotiators who are acting on behalf of someone else, and may even have a separate and hidden agenda of their own. It can be a volatile mixture of mismatched representatives. For one thing we will have more people jockeying and clamouring for attention. When we have multiple people sitting at the table, there is greater potential for turbulence to seethe beneath the apparent calm.

Multi counter party